Posted on 05/09/2005 4:59:01 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds
I noted it was very complex . . .
because of learning, tastes, conscious choices etc.
Holding all other things equal, I still say, recent research indicates that pheremones can be powerful contributors toward attraction related behaviors.
The article talked about some solid research. The smells triggered sexual responses--at least at the brain level and probably somewhat at the genital level.
The smells DID THAT. Smells CAN DO THAT.
The smell triggers can be ignored, amplified, distracted from, played various games with etc. But this research says that the smells trigger clear physiological brain responses in the brain area that triggers/facilitates sexual responses. That's simply true.
Smells are famous for triggering intense memories associated with those smells. That is hypothesized to be true because the nose has such a direct route to some very key brain centers. That's likely one reason that such smells as this research discusses can be so powerful
WITH CERTAIN TYPES OF PEOPLE AND PARTICULARLY SO IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS WITH CERTAIN OTHER TYPES OF PEOPLE OR THE SAME TYPES OF PEOPLE.
I don't understand what's so difficult to accept about that.
It's not quite the same thing as saying that one whiff of a homosexual stud's T-shirt and all the gays on the street are going to walk immediately across racing traffic and start humping on the sidewalk. But it's also not quite the same thing as saying that smells have no impact.
You'd do well to ask Scripter and/or EdReform about that text. It was likely a fabrication by pro-homosexual text book writers or faux researchers. I have never, ever heard or read that, and if it was really true, it would be blasted all over the place, since homosexual pushers are searching devotedly for anything that proves their points.
Perhaps not now, but if you came from a really screwed up family, with a father who deserted you, then you were molested/seduced as a child or adolescent by an older man you admired and looked up to, who knows?
Last time a distinction in brain chemistry was found and hypothesized as a basis for homosexuality, it was also found that the brain chemistry of lab rats that had been subjected to stress and drugs showed the same differences. So I guess this latest finding is pretty important, since things like stress and substance abuse are so unheard of in the gay community, right?
who knows is the correct answer. Many come from upstanding Christian families so I don't know.
There are many things that can cause a person to become attracted to the same sex; even being attracted but not acting on the attraction can weaken that attraction.
The important point is that the fact that there are tens of thousands of former homosexuals proves that it is not inborn, and certainly not immutable.
Even if some people have more of a tendency to be attracted to members of the same sex (which point is debatable at best), it is a fact that people, if they want, have a good chance of being healed from it.
Sorry, too much research on biological basis for behavior suggests we do indeed have inborn propensities. Identical twins reared apart go into the same or similar lines of work far more often than do adoptive siblings raised together from birth. In case you hadn't notice, the brain is physical.
We all know that gross deformities of the brain (Downs syndrome, for example) have a genetic basis. Why are you fighting the obvious? Do you really buy the argument that inborn = morally right?
You are raising strawman arguments.
Yes, identical twins are similar in many ways, but not in the tendency to go gay.
Some things like Downs have a genetic cause, but some infections do genetic damage, so your analogy to Downs is not complete. You'd have to show that the genetic damage shows up only at the same rate as other bad mutations (which gay does not), or that being gay provides some benefit (like sickle-cell/malaria), which hasn't been found.
My reference is "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine", 43,3, Spring 2001, pg 406, the article is "Infectious Causation of Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective", by Cochran, Ewald and Cochran.
This article notes that the evolutionary fitness load and relatively high incidence matches that of an infectious cause, not a hereditary cause. It's not proof of an infectious cause, but it is sufficient evidence to justify further research.
Did you read the second paragraph? Do you know the difference between temptation and sin? Do you know the difference between the conditions when Adam sinned only through his own volition, and conditions now when we have bad examples of other sinners, and are born without the communion of the Holy Spirit which Adam received when God breathed upon him?
Exactly what I was thinking.
For Gays, only the left side of the brain is affected, thus the Leftist thought pattern.
This is an effort of the homosexual advocates to declare everyone with a sense of smell is a homoseuxal.
(note: no sarcasm)
I believe (just as every qualifier in the article believes), genes dictate physical properties. The rest is the result of thought patterns ... taught and learned ... (because one believes a particular way or view is correct, one follows the paths that way or view directs.)
and are at pains to argue against the existence of inborn propensities toward particular behaviors (particularly sins).
Now, do you really, really believe that the normal genetic component of a heterosexual male human being does not produce a powerful temptation to commit fornication, and even fornication with women just past puberty? Yes, we sin by our own choice, just as Adam did, but it's a lot harder for us to choose rightly out here in 'this world' rather than in Paradise.
It's the wrong fight. Traditional morality is given us to transcend the temptations we are heir to, and grace to attain again the likeness which had fallen of old. Arguing that besetting temptations cannot be inborn goes against both the plain words of Scripture and increasingly against the evidence of science.
Fight for the morality given us in the Scriptures, not against science.
Homosexuality is a choice. My message to gay people. Look in the mirror and deny your existance because that is exactly what you are doing, living a lie.
tabula rasa was for intelligence, hormones out of sync should get treated as a disorder.
Exactly. I was thinking the same thing.
And what training etc. leads you to the conclusion that it's quack science?
It's not quack science nor propaganda EXCEPT for the interpretation the idiot gives it about cause and effect which the research doesn't speak to at all but the author pretends it does.
But, like all such science these days--it's just a very tiny slice of the whole reality. Not a lot of robust inferences one can draw from such tiny slices of reality.
But the data on the tiny slice is valid data and not all that different from research the last decade or two in that field.
Are you a chronic skeptic? Chronic naysayer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.